A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Mart68]

This reminds me of a Youtube video of "Supposedly" a Master tape copy on Open reel tape of "Dark side of the moon". On another forum, dozens of members commented on it and how the sound quality was so clear and improved from ANY vinyl or CD version they had ever heard. IT was literally a revelation in sound and 2-3 steps closer to the actual original master tape sound., by their description!!

I watched the video, and it showed an Open reel tape playing at 15 ips/2 Track, the entire side of the album I believe. Yes it did sound great for sure.

Later I thought about it, and did a quick A/B comparo to 2 CD normal versions of said album, and frankly it sounded almost identical, minus the visual cue of SEEING a big open reel tape at high speed spinning.

The forum went into a huge argument when I mentioned this..........ehhhh

Had similar thing at a demo of some prototype speakers, CD from some Sony pro device. Rough across the mids, the designer had already explained that the crossovers were not yet fully developed. But CD was blamed and a beautiful Studer open reel was wheeled in and hooked up.

Needless to say still rough across the mids but almost everyone present said 'Oh yes much better.' The designer and I exchanged glances.

 

[DSJR]

It's a 2 disc release with a CD as well, but different mix I think. Of course, the DVD audio also has a multi-track mix so there is that.
I don't contest your finding.

Late to this party, but Robert Fripp said in his journal that he could never really 'get' Lizard until he heard the surround mix Steve Wilson did and then it fell into place (SW was living not so far from where I grew up when he remastered some of the King Crimson works and I know the area well, RF staying in a small hotel in the town next to mine at the time. I believe SW may well have moved now or at least, created a new studio).

Lizard was the first KC album I ever heard and I hold it close as I was at that age to be impressed by it back then

Back to topic

 

[Haint]

You have understood the first part - that having a flat frequency response and adequate bandwidth are basic necessities to reproducing the combined pressure waveforms created when sounds from multiple instruments combine. All the information is in the pressure waveform, as our own ears tell us. This is still a bit simplified, because the rule is true only for minimum-phase technical devices: microphones, loudspeaker transducers, and amplifiers. Phase shift can distort the waveforms, but it turns out that humans don't hear it, especially when listening in normal rooms. We don't hear "accurate" waveforms in reflective spaces - like normal listening rooms or concert halls.

Interesting that you would buy electronics based on - frequently biased - specifications, but not loudspeakers. We now have meaningful measurements, as Amir, Erin, and others now publish to the great benefit of all serious audiophiles. I would trust that data more than my own ears in an uncontrolled listening situation.

What you next need to appreciate is how two ears and a brain allow us to perceive direction and space. Yes, you "only can hear 2 waves even with 8 speakers" but the human binaural hearing system allows you to appreciate that there are 8 speakers in the room. Stereo it isn't. Stereo is a basic problem for our industry, and it has become the default format. I dig into the details of this in the upcoming 4th edition of my book and the insights are very interesting. The phantom images that populate the soundstage between the loudspeakers are not comprised of accurate spectra or waveforms - both loudspeakers "talk" to both ears and there is comb filtering, especially noticeable for the featured artist in the centre location. A problem with multichannel audio is that the centre loudspeaker - a good idea - sounds different from the other phantom images on the soundstage. It is a challenge for recording engineers to deal with the centre channel. Humans are very adaptive - and forgiving! However, good immersive multichannel recordings can be remarkably impressive, allowing one to walk around the room and not lose the illusion.

Headphones, and the related cross-talk cancelled loudspeaker version, are fundamentally different. This is where 2 ears and 2 channels make sense, but recordings are mixed for loudspeaker stereo and what is heard in headphones is not what was intended. With technically accurate headphones and well synchronized head tracking binaural (dummy head) recordings through headphones can be remarkably like "being there". These technologies are discussed in the upcoming book, and they are serous options.

Sorry if you've already covered this in the many pages of responses Dr. Toole, but what multichannel or immersive tracks specifically do you consider to be the best examples of the formats?

 

[MattHooper]

I have a question that might clarify for me something about the role of reflections.

I used to have some speakers that had level-adjustable rear firing tweeters. Like many speakers that feature rear firing tweeters, this was meant to enhance the spaciousness and three-dimensionality of the presentation, by spraying more reflections into the room.

This certainly seemed to work - with the tweeters dialled up the sound did take on a more open spacious dimensional quality.

On the other hand, just like many people who have owned such speakers, I found there was a trade-off to the setting of the rear firing tweeter level: at some point as the tweeter level was raised it coloured the sound to a degree I did not care for. It sort of began to bleach out the sound somewhat of the tonal/timbral nuances in the recording. So I ended up dialling it so that there was a detectible effect in spaciousness, without adding too much colouration.

I remember that our local speaker, designer and builder Duke made comments at some point that his own experiments led to similar conclusions.

So my question is this:

Generally speaking, it seems that “ we like spaciousness and envelopment” in sound reproduction. And yet even though the higher settings of the rear firing tweeter created more of that spaciousness and envelopment, it did not overcome the desire for perceived pleasant tone/timbre to the sound (in my case, and the experience of many others).

Might this be explained on the primacy of tonal considerations over spaciousness?
Or perhaps these are just cases of audiophiles focussing on something in particular they want… paying very close attention to changes in timbre… possibly somebody else might just prefer the added spaciousness?

Also: Would the problem of colouration I’m talking about come from the fact that it was only high frequencies that were being augmented in the rear direction, and not the whole signal has one would have in a full dipole speaker? And so this just creates a tonal imbalance in reflections?

I used to have a full dipole set up of speakers in roughly the same position in the same room - Quad ESL 63 electrostatics atop gradient dipole subwoofers and I didn’t seem to have the same unpleasant experience with colorations as I did only operating the rear firing tweeter on my other speakers.

 

[olieb]

Might this be explained on the primacy of tonal considerations over spaciousness?

In my preference tonality certainly tonality has a greater weight than spaciousness. I would prefer a rich and natural sounding mono recording over a harsh and hollow sounding multi channel recording with great spaciousness any time.
But this hardly is a binary thing. I absolutely want to have both and if not possible, it is a (personal?) question of how much of the one has to be traded for the other.
And spaciousness is only one of several spatial qualities, auditory envelopment (bass) and imaging (precision) of the auditory scene would be others.

Also: The problem of colouration I’m talking about come from the fact that it was only high frequencies that were being augmented in the rear direction, and not the whole signal has one would have in a full dipole speaker? And so this just creates a tonal imbalance in reflections?

I agree, a rear tweeter will create coloration if tuned up above a certain level, the reflections will get brighter and brighter. To avoid this a controlled and adjusted balance of rear sound (probably in mids too) will be necessary. (Delay might be another consideration.)

 

[traind]

Audio has always had a good share of mythology, wishful thinking, and strongly expressed personal opinions formed under biased circumstances. It fills forums, and many manufacturers and some "experts" keep it supplied with new material.

A definition of snake oil, expertly and politely crafted!

 

[Curvature]

Hundreds of double-blind multiple loudspeaker subjective comparisons indicate that we are at or very close to the point of diminishing returns when comparing well engineered loudspeakers. There are subtle differences among them, and the interaction with the differences in recordings causes the results to end up with statistical ties.

I find myself at the bolded portion. I have heard all sorts of speakers and what I notice more and more is convergence in my experience.

Going to shows means seeing mostly anachronistic designs. My main interest in going is looking for minor innovations or good ideas.

On the rare occasion I travel I try to visit new facilities like the one in EMPAC to understand the frontiers of sound.

Once in a while I check the academic literature for new developments. My main hope is for a more precise set of perceptual models, one that will guide acoustic measurements and more easily demonstrate room and speaker+room differences.

At some point there will be a leap forward. It would be a pleasure to witness it.

 

[Jukebox]

The average sound quality of loudspeakers is definitely going up. Unfortunately, we are still saddled with stereo as the default medium - if one is speaking of weak links.

This is indeed a discussion to have and you always played the devils advocate for the surround systems.
Unfortunately the vast majority is stereo only focused as the absolute end all be all.
I have just returned from the Munich High End show and from the 100 demo rooms present, only 2 or 3 had a multichannel setup.

And the general opinion is the opposite, a multichannel system is inferior to a stereo one.
Off curse taking price into consideration it's much more expensive to have a 9.2.4 state of the art system comparing with just 2 speakers; also it's complicated to have the space to proper mount each speakers in the correct position and many don't even bother.

But after reading your book multiple times and experimenting with so many products in the last 10 years I am in the process of switching from stereo only to a multichannel Auro 3d 5.2.4 surround system for music and movies alike.
I am selling my current speakers and stepping on range bellow to afford the extra channels.

I am convinced it's the right thing to do but the stereo old me will probably always want a fancy amplifier with two expensive speakers

 

[Oddball]

We all do what we can.

I "accumulated" my multi-channel system over 15 years, so the first 5.1 part and all the amps are almost fully amortised. It is like investing, long game is the end-game. Chose what you want to keep.

My advice would be don't go where you don't feel that it will provide you with gains you want to keep over extended period.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And the general opinion is the opposite, a multichannel system is inferior to a stereo one.

I don't believe that is a defensible position any longer.

Off curse taking price into consideration it's much more expensive

That is. However, the argument that bothers me is the one that says that moving from a good stereo system to a multichannel one of the same cost is inevitably a compromise. It presumes the incremental expenditures on a stereo system are as rewarding as applying those expenditures to multichannel expansion.

 

[olieb]

However, the argument that bothers me is the one that says that moving from a good stereo system to a multichannel one of the same cost is inevitably a compromise.
It presumes the incremental expenditures on a stereo system are as rewarding as applying those expenditures to multichannel expansion.

It is certainly a compromise as everything always is.
The comparison of rewards into a stereo system versus multichannel is a difficult one. I would estimate that 80-90% of what I am listening to is available (at the moment) only as stereo. So a multichannel investment can bring reward only for 10-20% of the program. Investment in stereo clearly has an advantage here. This will change when more program is released in multichannel.

My question would be how good have the "surround" speakers to be? To be specific, if I use Kef R11 for LCR, what kind of speaker for side/back/height would bring me into the domain of diminishing returns? Q150, R3 or do I need R11 (to stay inside the company's lineup)?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

It is certainly a compromise as everything always is.

It depends on how you frame the issue.

I would estimate that 80-90% of what I am listening to is available (at the moment) only as stereo.So a multichannel investment can bring reward only for 10-20% of the program. Investment in stereo clearly has an advantage here. This will change when more program is released in multichannel.

That is a valid point but not a fixed one. When I "converted" to mch, I coveted every relevant new offering because of their relative rarity. But I got in early and the proportion has shifted substantially and mch recordings in my musical interest are now more than 50% of my collection.

My question would be how good have the "surround" speakers to be? To be specific, if I use Kef R11 for LCR, what kind of speaker for side/back/height would bring me into the domain of diminished returns? Q150, R3 or do I need R11 (to stay inside the company's lineup)?

Some will be absolutists and maintain that all the channels need to be of equal quality but I am not one of them. Because I listen mostly to music written to be performed (and recorded) with the performers generally in front of the audience (me), I am comfortable with somewhat lesser but matching speakers in surround. It turns out that, in practice, that works quite well for those recordings which are more immersive in having sources all around. I have KEF Blade 2 Metas for L/C/R and use a pair of LS60W for LS/RS.

 

[Oddball]

It depends on how you frame the issue.

That is a valid point but not a fixed one. When I "converted" to mch, I coveted every relevant new offering because of their relative rarity. But I got in early and the proportion has shifted substantially and mch recordings in my musical interest are now more than 50% of my collection.

Some will be absolutists and maintain that all the channels need to be of equal quality but I am not one of them. Because I listen mostly to music written to be performed (and recorded) with the performers generally in front of the audience (me), I am comfortable with somewhat lesser but matching speakers in surround. It turns out that, in practice, that works quite well for those recordings which are more immersive in having sources all around. I have KEF Blade 2 Metas for L/C/R and use a pair of LS60W for LS/RS.

As Kal says, LCR should be whatever you can afford. Surrounds are many, and unfortunately don't really call for so much duty, so agree that they could be stepped down somewhat, but not stripped down to irrelevance. But then there are FWL/FLR/BSR/BSL, so in 9 bed channel setup it does add up.

 

[olieb]

I have KEF Blade 2 Metas for L/C/R and use a pair of LS60W for LS/RS.

Haha, not a bad combination. Many here, like me, would probably put that into the domain of diminishing returns even when switching LCR and sides. A bit like saying: you do not need all channels with R11, if you can have better!

Some will be absolutists and maintain that all the channels need to be of equal quality but I am not one of them.

Just imagining four Blades for heights.

Your choice is a 5-ch system then?

But I got in early and the proportion has shifted substantially and mch recordings in my musical interest are now more than 50% of my collection.

Interesting, the multichannel portion is certainly growing, but still too much not available to reach anything like 50% for me. Early music or lesser known stuff rarely is in multichannel. Not to mention chamber music performed not by "big names".

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Your choice is a 5-ch system then?

Yes. I do not have a home theater; this is for music only. Furthermore, it is overwhelmingly for classical music. I have experimented with adding front and rear height speaker but what they add is not worth the effort, imho in my particular environment.

Early music or lesser known stuff rarely is in multichannel. Not to mention chamber music performed not by "big names".

Hmm. That's the same stuff I relish in mch.

 

[Ellebob]

There was an interesting study about envelopment and advantages of mch over stereo and mono. I think I read it on AES and was probably this past fall.

Listeners easily noticed the difference between mono and stereo. I don't remember if they tried 3ch or 5.x next. But, I remember the take away that 5.x was definitely a big jump better than stereo. As they went further to 7.x and above I forget the highest (either 7.x.4 or 9.x.6) listeners thought the jumps were very small and didn't add much if anything above 5.x for envelopment.

Personally, I think overheads whether 2,4, or 6 are a nice improvement. However if you had the surrounds higher on the wall aiming down towards the listeners it might not be as noticeable. YMMV.

 

[MattHooper]

Some will be absolutists and maintain that all the channels need to be of equal quality but I am not one of them. Because I listen mostly to music written to be performed (and recorded) with the performers generally in front of the audience (me), I am comfortable with somewhat lesser but matching speakers in surround. It turns out that, in practice, that works quite well for those recordings which are more immersive in having sources all around. I have KEF Blade 2 Metas for L/C/R and use a pair of LS60W for LS/RS.

That sounds like a mind blowing system.

I’m as much a home theatre fanatic as two channel and so I was very careful about picking my man left centre right speakers.
I didn’t need performance at really high sound level levels because I don’t listen loud, so my main criteria was the timbre/tonal quality. So I ended up with Hales Transcendence speakers for L/C/R.
Choice of side and back surrounds was more modest, but again I was looking to subjectively match the character I perceived from my fronts. Turned out that the monitor audio Bronze line of speakers fit the bill perfectly. The more expensive platinum series sounded more tipped up whitish and bright in the high end, but the Bronze seemed to be right in line with the Hales.
It worked out very well because I find the sound to be very seamless. I wasn’t going to add any speakers into the room that didn’t please me in terms of timbre, even if they were going to be just doing surround duty.

 

[olieb]

Hmm. That's the same stuff I relish in mch.

You made me curious. There is much going on in publishing mch versions. So I just checked as a small test of mine the available recordings of Josquin masses in the Apple catalogue. But sadly I could only find a single one (I might have overlooked some, but not many). And I could not find Atmos versions of Bartok violin sonatas or Shostakovich string quartets either. (Not to mention the possible interest in a specific interpretation)
And all this is still rather mainstream repertoire.
So stereo will stay important for me for the foreseeable future.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You made me curious. There is much going on in publishing mch versions. So I just checked as a small test of mine the available recordings of Josquin masses in the Apple catalogue. But sadly I could only find a single one (I might have overlooked some, but not many). And I could not find Atmos versions of Bartok violin sonatas or Shostakovich string quartets either. (Not to mention the possible interest in a specific interpretation)
And all this is still rather mainstream repertoire.

Agreed but I am only concerned with uncompressed multichannel, not Atmos as it is commonly offered nor what is in the Apple catalog at this moment (but see below). Josquin is not well represented according to hraudio.net (I have only a handful) but the Shostakovich quartets and Bartok's violin sonatas are (HRaudio Bartok Violin Sonatas). I have Keleman's set which I do enjoy. Unfortunately, there is no reliable listing of all is available from discs (which I rip) to downloads.

As for Atmos and Apple, I think that what Apple is doing will snowball and there are ways becoming availabe to extract 5.1/7.1 content from them.

 

[Artsfols]

I have not caught up on all recent postings. I just want to interject a quick note into what I previously referred to colloquially as "velocity". Further reading indicates that the proper term is "transient response". To me a speaker that can respond very quickly to transients is "fast". One that does not is "slow". It strikes me that if a speaker has a slow or delayed transient response, then for a few milliseconds its frequency response will be inaccurate or unfaithful to the sound source. I have no idea what the implications of this might be in terms of the sound that we hear. I also don't know if transient response is commonly tested. I don't want to derail the current trend of dialogue, but I'll read with avidity any response on this subject. I have it in my mind that cheap speakers made of poor materials will greatly suffer in their response to transients in music. Is there anything to that?